AP lang stratigies

deduction

A reasoning process in which a conclusion is derived logically from premises. A general theroy backed up by multiple prices of evidence.

induction

a prosses when an author uses causes to build and argument and come to a conclusion. Lists qualities that lead to a concusion.

Narritive

the speaker presents evidence from their own personal experiences or accounts, often culminating in a conclusive argumentative statement. Usaly the end of the story is an argumentative point.

Cause and effect

assuming one variable in life determines the out come. One thing causes or influences another. Sugests a cause and effect argument.

Deffinition

the paragraph is sequenced as an extended definition.

comepare and contrast

an argument sturced on the similarities and difrenctes of something

example

a specific incident that supports the authors curent step in the line of reasoning.

anecdote

an example told as a story to generate an emotional responce in the audiance

statistics

using numbers to suport the authors curent step in line of reasoning

quotations

use of exact words of someone who is a trusted source and or an expert, supports the curent step in the line of reasoning

simile

compsres using like or as

metaphor

comepares not using like or as

analogy

comparison between like events or situations

anti-thesis

the use of the oposing argument; counter claim

juxtapostition

the use of two examples that are jarring side-by-side

allusion

the reference to something historical outside the story

declared priorities (deductive)

the speaker declares what ideas/outcomes must be considered most important and builds the argument from there. ONLY works if speaker has declared authority

declared sequincing

speaker declares the order in which prorites must be achieved (builds the argument from there)

rehtorical question

speaker asks a question to the reader, then awnsers it in the text. guides the audience through the line of reasoning.

ad hominem

attacking the character, motive, or attribute of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself

straw man

misrepresenting,exaggerating, or oversimplifying an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack and knock down

red herring

introducing an irrelevant side issue or distraction to shift the audince’s attention away from the original core argument

sillperiry slope

aruging without evidence that a minor initial action will trigger a catastrophic and unstoppable chain reaction of extrema events

either/or

presenting an artificial choice that link a complex issue to only two extreme opposing sides, ignoring other outcomes

hastey generalization

drawing a broad, sweeping conclusion or universal rule from a small, unrepresentative, or insufficient sample of evidence

ad populum (bandwangon)

cliaming than an idea or claim is valid simply because it is popular, or a large number of people believe in it

false cause

assuming that because event B happend chronologically after event A, event A cause event B

begging the question

stating a conclusion or a premise in an attempt to prove it, effectvely looping the argument back to where it started without real evidence

appeal to authority

relying heavily on the endorsement of a supposed exper or figure who lack actual credibility or qualifications in the relevant

non sequitur

when the speaker state something that has no logical connection to the premise

staw man

arguer attacks a view similar but not the same as the opponent’s view